18 ms·

Should we legalize and support through marriage all naturally occurring sexual desires and acts? I think that questions almost answers itself, but you never kn

by beauSD 11y ago

Should we legalize and support through marriage all naturally occurring sexual desires and acts? I think that questions almost answers itself, but you never know after a ruling like this.

serve_yay 11y ago
> I think that questions almost answers itself I think you should ask a better question.
- beauSD 11y ago
  I've asked some "better" questions above. Feel free to answer them.
rmxt 11y ago
That's a red herring, almost concern troll-esque, argument. This ruling isn't a slippery slope towards moral depravity and chaos, no matter how much religious authorities will attempt to paint it as such. We can definitely know that civilization as we know it will not collapse because two guys/girls are allowed to kiss, hold hands once in a while, and receive acknowledgment from civil authorities that they share tax returns. An important distinction between gay marriage and other human taboos that I'm guessing you're referring to (pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.) is the presence of mutual consent and respect. The ability to consent derives from the uniquely (adult) human ability to reason about the future and one's self-existence to an unusually sophisticated level. Children lack the experience necessary to reason about such things, hence why pedophilia is such a long-standing and widespread taboo. If two fully consenting adults want to do something that celebrates their shared bond between each other, who or what is anyone else to tell them they shouldn't do that?
- beauSD 11y ago
  You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said that whatever your sexual compulsion is, no one else has a right to tell you that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate to open and you don't get to close it after gay "marriage" is approved - others will want the freedom as well. It's not a red herring because you already have people on HN, and I'm sure many many other places, asking when polygamy will get to share in the same "civil rights". And to play devil's advocate (and that language is intentional) who are you to say that a child or an animal can't consent to a sexual relationship or marriage with another child or an adult? How closed-minded of you. We are already giving children under 18 the right to access birth control (without their parent's consent) and the freedom to decide that they are not the gender that they were "assigned" - so why can't they decide who to "love"? And who are you to say an animal doesn't have the same rights, feelings, and ability to give consent as a human? I think PETA and many others would actively disagree. If you pay attention, I haven't mentioned religion. What I've mentioned is the reasoning and appeal you gave for allowing what is "natural". Who decides what is "natural" and acceptable for human beings? The animal kingdom? You personally? These are not troll questions, these are important questions and it matters gravely how we answer them.
  - yeahdude 11y ago
    > You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said that whatever your [thoughts, feelings and behaviors about X are], no one else has a right to tell you that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate to open and you don't get to close it after [X] is approved - others will want the freedom as well. This isn't an insult, but you're a nitwit? The argument you're making is the prototypical "slippery slope" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nadya 11y ago
      I'd advise you to actually read the article you are linking to. > in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. His argument is not a fallacious one. The reasoning used to justify applies to other scenarios. Polygamy is the main one brought up on this thread: Why are we telling adults who and how many people they can marry? If you legalize [x] because [y] and [y] also applies to [z] then [x] and [z] are equivalent for reasons [y]; therefore [z] should be legalized if [x] is legalized unless [x] and [z] are demonstrably not equivalent for reasons [y]. I'd also like to note that the cutoff for being an adult should be 25, not 18. Therefore people shouldn't be able to be married until they are 25. The age of 18 is arbitrary and in many places that age is 16. In some places that age is 14. When exactly is the cutoff? Well it's based on an individuals mental maturity, which is not equivalent to their age. I've met 12 year olds who are more rational and mature than 30 year olds. Furthermore: Hebephilia and pedophilia are often merged concepts when people speak. For the people speaking on this subject, can you clarify which you're talking about? It's difficult to tell which people mean, but it usually gets clarified to the 13-16 year old ranges. At that age, I'd argue most children understand marriage, can be educated on the government-related issues to marriage, and understand sexual relations and pregnancy. The idea that they can consent to sexual relations of other minors, but not of adults, is some form of double-think. Note that in this context it doesn't seem marriage is what is being brought into question: just sexuality. Note that I'm not defending it: I think people shouldn't be able to have sex or get married until at least age 25 unless they can demonstrate the ability to proper care and provide for a child with a stable income.
- api 11y ago
  The religious arguments made by opponents to this are disingenuous. The Bible and many other traditional religious texts have lots of bad things to say about, say, usury (the charging of interest, or at least excess interest), yet you see nobody protesting outside credit card companies or payday lenders. I don't think I've ever heard a Christian conservative criticize our excessive level of private debt. The Catholic Church today is generally anti-death-penalty and anti-war, yet these Papal opinions do not seem to trickle down to the laity either. Christian conservatives were mostly cheerleading the Iraq invasion, though protestants did so slightly more than Catholics. That tells me this is a proxy debate, at least for the right, and that the real issue is something else. Proxy debates happen when the real issue being debated is something that is verboten in polite discussion, or is something that's already been put to bed -- e.g. the "evolution" proxy debate which is really over teaching of religion in schools (an already settled issue). The real reason as near as I can tell boils down to crypto-racism and eugenics concerns. If homosexuality is "okay," then that might negatively impact fertility among more "desirable" urban demographics, etc. Basically the concern is that this will negatively impact white or upper class fertility. That stuff is verboten to talk about in polite company, thus the proxy debating. P.S. I don't agree and am pro-equality -- I am just analyzing what I see as the real reason for all the opposition. Delve into the right-o-sphere and you immediately run into a ton of "HBD" (human biodiversity, a modern neo-racialist rebranding) type stuff. P.P.S. I did give the parents a compensatory up-vote since I don't think down-votes should be done out of disagreement. Down-votes should be for things that are just stupid, effortless, or mean-spirited, not for opinions that are just unpopular.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Thank you, quite insightful and I agree on all counts. My use of the Bible quote was an attempt to cherry-pick in the same sort of way as the arguments I'm detracting. The selective re-imagining of religious texts to fit the preexisting social and ethical desires of a group of people is probably an issue as old as religion and organized civilization itself.
    - api 11y ago
      I strongly suspect that the real historic reason for taboos against homosexuality boiled down to two concerns in roughly this order: (1) Keeping birth rates up in order to raise armies and work forces. Agrarian civilizations derived power largely from their demographic vitality. There are actual references to this in the Bible if I recall correctly -- about your children being as arrows in a quiver, etc. Opting out of fertility was to those civilizations akin to draft dodging or not paying taxes. (2) Somewhat legitimate sanitation and health concerns before the advent of antibiotics, condoms, etc. -- since some homosexual behaviors are higher risk in this regard. Keep in mind that what today would be a minor infection might be a death sentence back them. #1 is obsolete. Industrial and post-industrial civilizations derive power from brains and infrastructure, not raw population. #2 is obsolete if you have an educated population with access to condoms and health care. If "dysgenics" ever becomes an actual problem we can just fix it with genetic engineering... which of course would require confronting both the left and the right. The left would oppose it because it's not "natural" (no GMO!), while the right would consider it "playing God."

by beauSD 11y ago

Should we legalize and support through marriage all naturally occurring sexual desires and acts? I think that questions almost answers itself, but you never know after a ruling like this.

serve_yay 11y ago

> I think that questions almost answers itself I think you should ask a better question.

beauSD 11y ago
I've asked some "better" questions above. Feel free to answer them.

rmxt 11y ago

That's a red herring, almost concern troll-esque, argument. This ruling isn't a slippery slope towards moral depravity and chaos, no matter how much religious authorities will attempt to paint it as such. We can definitely know that civilization as we know it will not collapse because two guys/girls are allowed to kiss, hold hands once in a while, and receive acknowledgment from civil authorities that they share tax returns. An important distinction between gay marriage and other human taboos that I'm guessing you're referring to (pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.) is the presence of mutual consent and respect. The ability to consent derives from the uniquely (adult) human ability to reason about the future and one's self-existence to an unusually sophisticated level. Children lack the experience necessary to reason about such things, hence why pedophilia is such a long-standing and widespread taboo. If two fully consenting adults want to do something that celebrates their shared bond between each other, who or what is anyone else to tell them they shouldn't do that?

beauSD 11y ago
You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said that whatever your sexual compulsion is, no one else has a right to tell you that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate to open and you don't get to close it after gay "marriage" is approved - others will want the freedom as well. It's not a red herring because you already have people on HN, and I'm sure many many other places, asking when polygamy will get to share in the same "civil rights". And to play devil's advocate (and that language is intentional) who are you to say that a child or an animal can't consent to a sexual relationship or marriage with another child or an adult? How closed-minded of you. We are already giving children under 18 the right to access birth control (without their parent's consent) and the freedom to decide that they are not the gender that they were "assigned" - so why can't they decide who to "love"? And who are you to say an animal doesn't have the same rights, feelings, and ability to give consent as a human? I think PETA and many others would actively disagree. If you pay attention, I haven't mentioned religion. What I've mentioned is the reasoning and appeal you gave for allowing what is "natural". Who decides what is "natural" and acceptable for human beings? The animal kingdom? You personally? These are not troll questions, these are important questions and it matters gravely how we answer them.
- yeahdude 11y ago
  > You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said that whatever your [thoughts, feelings and behaviors about X are], no one else has a right to tell you that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate to open and you don't get to close it after [X] is approved - others will want the freedom as well. This isn't an insult, but you're a nitwit? The argument you're making is the prototypical "slippery slope" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I'd advise you to actually read the article you are linking to. > in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. His argument is not a fallacious one. The reasoning used to justify applies to other scenarios. Polygamy is the main one brought up on this thread: Why are we telling adults who and how many people they can marry? If you legalize [x] because [y] and [y] also applies to [z] then [x] and [z] are equivalent for reasons [y]; therefore [z] should be legalized if [x] is legalized unless [x] and [z] are demonstrably not equivalent for reasons [y]. I'd also like to note that the cutoff for being an adult should be 25, not 18. Therefore people shouldn't be able to be married until they are 25. The age of 18 is arbitrary and in many places that age is 16. In some places that age is 14. When exactly is the cutoff? Well it's based on an individuals mental maturity, which is not equivalent to their age. I've met 12 year olds who are more rational and mature than 30 year olds. Furthermore: Hebephilia and pedophilia are often merged concepts when people speak. For the people speaking on this subject, can you clarify which you're talking about? It's difficult to tell which people mean, but it usually gets clarified to the 13-16 year old ranges. At that age, I'd argue most children understand marriage, can be educated on the government-related issues to marriage, and understand sexual relations and pregnancy. The idea that they can consent to sexual relations of other minors, but not of adults, is some form of double-think. Note that in this context it doesn't seem marriage is what is being brought into question: just sexuality. Note that I'm not defending it: I think people shouldn't be able to have sex or get married until at least age 25 unless they can demonstrate the ability to proper care and provide for a child with a stable income.
api 11y ago
The religious arguments made by opponents to this are disingenuous. The Bible and many other traditional religious texts have lots of bad things to say about, say, usury (the charging of interest, or at least excess interest), yet you see nobody protesting outside credit card companies or payday lenders. I don't think I've ever heard a Christian conservative criticize our excessive level of private debt. The Catholic Church today is generally anti-death-penalty and anti-war, yet these Papal opinions do not seem to trickle down to the laity either. Christian conservatives were mostly cheerleading the Iraq invasion, though protestants did so slightly more than Catholics. That tells me this is a proxy debate, at least for the right, and that the real issue is something else. Proxy debates happen when the real issue being debated is something that is verboten in polite discussion, or is something that's already been put to bed -- e.g. the "evolution" proxy debate which is really over teaching of religion in schools (an already settled issue). The real reason as near as I can tell boils down to crypto-racism and eugenics concerns. If homosexuality is "okay," then that might negatively impact fertility among more "desirable" urban demographics, etc. Basically the concern is that this will negatively impact white or upper class fertility. That stuff is verboten to talk about in polite company, thus the proxy debating. P.S. I don't agree and am pro-equality -- I am just analyzing what I see as the real reason for all the opposition. Delve into the right-o-sphere and you immediately run into a ton of "HBD" (human biodiversity, a modern neo-racialist rebranding) type stuff. P.P.S. I did give the parents a compensatory up-vote since I don't think down-votes should be done out of disagreement. Down-votes should be for things that are just stupid, effortless, or mean-spirited, not for opinions that are just unpopular.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Thank you, quite insightful and I agree on all counts. My use of the Bible quote was an attempt to cherry-pick in the same sort of way as the arguments I'm detracting. The selective re-imagining of religious texts to fit the preexisting social and ethical desires of a group of people is probably an issue as old as religion and organized civilization itself.
  - api 11y ago
    I strongly suspect that the real historic reason for taboos against homosexuality boiled down to two concerns in roughly this order: (1) Keeping birth rates up in order to raise armies and work forces. Agrarian civilizations derived power largely from their demographic vitality. There are actual references to this in the Bible if I recall correctly -- about your children being as arrows in a quiver, etc. Opting out of fertility was to those civilizations akin to draft dodging or not paying taxes. (2) Somewhat legitimate sanitation and health concerns before the advent of antibiotics, condoms, etc. -- since some homosexual behaviors are higher risk in this regard. Keep in mind that what today would be a minor infection might be a death sentence back them. #1 is obsolete. Industrial and post-industrial civilizations derive power from brains and infrastructure, not raw population. #2 is obsolete if you have an educated population with access to condoms and health care. If "dysgenics" ever becomes an actual problem we can just fix it with genetic engineering... which of course would require confronting both the left and the right. The left would oppose it because it's not "natural" (no GMO!), while the right would consider it "playing God."